Study anticipated by analysis of a game

I am quite new to composing, and I would like some help on what to do about a study I have composed. I haven't seen this issue discussed elsewhere, but maybe some of you have experienced something similar before?

The study is inspired by a real OTB game where Black could have won by making a tempo move with his a-pawn, putting White in a study-like zugzwang. Black missed the win, and played a drawing continuation instead. Analysis of the game was published in a magazine, where the win was demonstrated.

I discvered that without the a-pawns, the position would be a study-like MUTUAL zugzwang, and the position inspired me to compose a study. I tried to further improve on the zugzwang position, but surprisingly, it appears that the game happened to get the ideal construction of the position. So the position arising in my study is indentical to the game, except that I removed two pawns. Without the two pawns, the position is a mutual zugzwang, where the drawing line was shown in the game, and the winning line was shown in the published analysis of the game. My contribution is mainly that I have added some introductory play where White has to lose a tempo in order to reach the zugzwang position with Black to move.

I would like to publish the study somehow, but I don't think I can take full credit for the study considering how similar it is to the game and the analysis. Do you have advice for what I should do? I can think of at least three possibilities:

Even if you decide that the right path is to contact the annotator (not a bad idea!), can you honestly be certain that there are not multiple annotators (who published the same conclusion)?
If so, theoretically, I suppose you'd have to find the first published annotation -- which might prove a difficult matter (particularly if the players involved were well known, internationally).
In fact first publication may not be enough -- beyond the actual publication date, an editor for a problem publication would have to record the date of first receipt (which can be important in sorting out anticipation issues).
It is unlikely this information will have been preserved by a chess journal (and the longer you wait, the more difficult it may become).

So, you may want to quickly establish contact with the annotator you are aware of... and discuss the matter, as a possibility.

Also, it is entirely possible that the winning line was discussed in live commentary, during the game (which might be considered a publication).
Can you properly credit a kibitz, shared in live commentary, from some patzer following the game with a computer/EGTB?

As I said, this could be a very messy issue.
Nevertheless, if you believe you have added substantial value to the study (even by what may appear a slight alteration of the position), you certainly deserve some credit.

You are asking all the right questions, yet a definite answer (based upon established precedent) may still prove elusive.
If a definite answer is not provided here, I would suggest that you simply do your best to discern what you consider the proper credit for the problem, and offer this -- along with all the information you can provide! -- to a quality studies editor. Then, ask the editor to help determine if you are properly crediting the problem.

When you reach an agreement with the editor, make certain that all vital information is published (so that anyone, including the judge, has an opportunity to take issue with how you've credited the problem).

Thanks for the replies! I suspected there was no easy answer to this, and I suppose the editor has the final word anyway. At least I will make sure to supply everything I know about the game.

@Hauke,

I realized it was getting hard to become Norway's strongest OTB player, so I started investigating another area. :P

Joking aside, I have always enjoyed solving chess problems. I composed a few (very light) directmates in my teenage years, but never managed to compose any studies. Last year, I decided to give it a try again, and suddenly I am hooked. :) Also, as a father of two small children, it is hard to find time for OTB play; it is much easier to find time for composing studies.

BTW, I am impressed that you knew my OTB title (unless you googled me!).

@Siegfried,

Thanks for the compliment. Do you get first-hand information on upcoming studies in the Schwalbe?

in the new EG there is doubt about the question if a game anticipates a study, regarding your study that was after a game but modified. Let me explain it with two examples, both taken from a wonderful German book "Das 1x1 des Endspiels" by HH Staudte & M Milescu.

Let us not look at the duals in both compositions, which mostly might go as minor.

In the first case, I would see no anticipation. In the second case, I would see an anticipation from move 3 because that is the analysis that Hariel has performed, i.e. that he created while playing.

This means that there actually must have been a misunderstanding. The actual score of a game of course can be an anticipation, since it consists of the analysis performed of the players. In my opinion while a game is not a joint composition, the moves of one side can count as a creation or analysis by that player since he thought those to be the best in that position. The kudos would go for Hillel Aloni to point out it is the only win - if it was - but a lot of the work was already performed by Hariel, so I would think it is correct to attribute the study to both.